The issue, to me, is not a religious one at all. Except for, of course I do not believe that kill\ murdering a person who is no threat to you or others is wrong. That I think murder\ killing is wrong could be a attributed to my religious beliefs. But that a human being is a human being from zygote to natural death is based on scientific fact.
I would like to dissociate the movement from being a religious one, to a fact based one. Not to eliminate religions from taking up the cause, but to base the arguments on facts and not religious beliefs and to include those who may not be religious to take up the cause.
1 Like
I agree completely, it’s the dissociation of the issue from being a religious issue to a personhood that I think has Libertarians reconsidering the position.
1 Like
My favorite argument… 
I don’t doubt that it will end up being the moral stain of our generation. It’s really the only argument that needs to be made repeatedly by anyone on the pro life side. Roe V Wade was premised on the basis that no one could say when a person comes into being.
1 Like
Ya, I understand the argument and I don’t want to turn another thread into another abortion debate.
It’s this generation slavery and just like slavery the DNC is on the wrong side of the argument.
1 Like
I absolutely HATE this. It is absolutely ridiculous, but unfortunately true state of affairs.
3 Likes
Actually rather impressed by Trump’s comments asking the Russians to leak Hill-dogs emails. Places her in quite the Morton’s fork. Either her e-mails matter and, therefore, both she and Trump are wildly irresponsible. Or they do not, making the critique worthless.
Edited for clarity.
1 Like
No. It’d be knowledge of a foreign military-intelligence agency’s assumed hacking of a political parties server/data/whatever they got, which was already known by .gov and reported to said political party.
Knowledge of the subversion would require knowledge of the pending leak to WikiLeaks, no? In which case would require being in cahoots, no?
I didn’t say that bolded part, you assumed it.
You starting to see why I keep getting the impression you’re stuck on the cahoots thing?
But anyway:
That I’m not as sold as you are on this whole thing, and open about it really irks the shit out of you, is the only reason this part of the conversation continues.
Buck of non-gov experts don’t think NK hacked Sony. .Gov blames NK. The idea the Russians are as bad at hacking as a bunch of backwoods fucksticks in NK makes me laugh too.
Did anyone see that Bernie Sanders left the Democratic party and went back to being an independent?
I did. One twitter post called it a pump and dump, which I think is hysterical.
2 Likes
[quote=“countingbeans, post:810, topic:218984, full:true”]
No. It’d be knowledge of a foreign military-intelligence agency’s assumed hacking of a political parties server/data/whatever they got, which was already known by .gov and reported to said political party. [/quote]
No, this would have happened during the same week that the DNC was calling CrowdStrike in to investigate suspicious activity they’d discovered on their own. You need to research and understand this before we discuss it in any detail. Or maybe you think that Trump is actually the one who alerted the DNC to the compromise? Or whatever? I don’t know, and I guess your hypothetical was in fact less approximate of reality, and more far-fetched, than I initially gave it credit for. It doesn’t matter, and we should stop arguing about it, because it isn’t reality, and it was based on a guess (“taco bowl” email precedes tweet) that turned out to be wrong.
See above re: I don’t actually care about uncovering more of the unspoken details of your mysterious hypothetical, so let’s drop it. But you can go ahead and abandon this mistaken impression because it has nothing to do with a word I’ve actually said in this discussion.
[quote]
That I’m not as sold as you are on this whole thing, and open about it really irks the shit out of you, is the only reason this part of the conversation continues. [/quote]
Nothing about this irks me, and it certainly isn’t about being “sold” on anything. I have explained in detail how and why the evidence as it now exists suggests precisely what I’ve explained it to suggest. I have further explained how and why it is meaningless to counter-argue without evidence – indeed, without even appearing to acknowledge that evidence is required. You have refused, at each of many opportunities, to adduce a fact…or piece of evidence…or analysis of the substance in support of the innuendo that those of us hereabouts who are clearly best-informed about this topic are mistaken in our read of the matter as it currently stands.
Which is not to say that we aren’t mistaken – of course we could be, if new information reverses what is now a compelling consensus. But unless you can explain in even the most general sense how and why this might be the case, I’m going to go with growing and open gov’t consensus + the findings of all three cybersec companies called in to investigate + the opinion of the Germans vis-a-vis the Bundestag hack + the linguistic analysis of Guccifer 2.0 + the obvious fact that it is in Putin’s interest to increase the probability of the election of an avowed NATO skeptic whose policies will erode US hegemony and who has advisers with strong Kremlin ties in his ear, etc., etc.
Surely it isn’t lost on you that of the two of us, only one is citing things like the findings of CrowdStrike and ThreatConnect, and linguistic analysis of Guccifer 2.0’s Romanian, and the use of Elite VPN Service, and German intelligence assessments of APT 28? In other words, that only one of us is citing anything at all?
Still with this “I need to be right so badly I’m not even arguing your macro point in the slightest.”
Which, btw in case you missed it, is you’re entirely focused on the wrong shit. Which is to say, took the bait, hook line and sinker.
I don’t argue macro points. Macro points are the purview of comments sections under Salon and Breitbart articles.
I argue details, because that’s where the devils are. Right and wrong are a series of precise details. Always.
As for whether I’ve taken any kind of bait, we went over that. I will not explain again how and why direct and unprecedented political subversion among geopolitical – and thermonuclear – adversaries is a legitimate object of concern vis-a-vis a literal political insider’s having emailed “this could make several points difference with my peeps.” So we might as well just drop the whole “you shouldn’t care about this” charade. My brain accommodates a lush variety of species of political concern, and it happens to be trained at this very moment on the one that is by a billion miles the most urgent, the most grave, and the most deserving of my attention.
He was never in the Democratic Party…
That’s true and I think it is under reported by the media. On the democrat side the people did not have a fair and open opportunity to choose their candidate the elite of the party did that for them.
Romney to endorse Johnson/Weld?
1 Like
How did the elites choose their candidate? Yes they obviously swayed the super delegates but HRC still won the regular delegates. Sure she had more money but ultimately it is up to the voters. If the voters bought into her ads without doing their own research or were too lazy to show up for Bernie then that’s ultimately their problem.
